Abstract

This article has as its objective the analysis of the decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case “Whaling in the Antarctic”, Australia v. Japan (New Zealand Intervenor), particularly in respect to how it arose, the development of the controversy and how the case would become a milestone in the role of experts in cases brought before the ICJ because, with the posture taken to avoid non-transparent practices or ones which could affect proper processes. It also analyzes the standard of review set by the ICJ for the determination of what is or is not science. It demonstrates how this standard could allow inconsistencies which could arise in the decision itself, and suggests other, more precise, methods considered by the ICJ which could overcome the problems of this standard of revision